To what.

​@@sthradhervernon7654 to Pauline Hanson 😂

I wake up at 6 am to go to work😂

​@@Saimondsongs7958 I bet you do .......

Communism is the Retarded version of NAZISM.

Nothing needs to be done, there is no violation. The Labor hollowmen just want to scare Payman into resigning so they can get the seat back.

I am afraid so.

As usual

I was honest in my deceit?

Or is it more: nothing should be done.

Labor hasnt brought it up. Nor will they

Some people said something doesnt mean Labor is bringing it up.

Media reporters are bringing it up not labor. If labor wanted to bring it up they would simply of done a motion referring the matter to the court Which they haven’t done

it was not applicable, the Senator was effectively stateless until become a naturalized Australian...

It's legal when supporting child killing Zionist religious extremist colonialism , it's illegal to be with humanity. My foot.

And who’s footing the bill for this embassy

@@testicool013 Indeed.

And your point is.

@@chrisholznagel7428 work it out genius

It is probably a functioning entity of the CIA.

Senator Waters was disqualified, because there was no irremediable impediment to the renunciation of her foreign citizenship. She has since renounced her foreign citizenship and been re-elected to Parliament.

Exactly

This case is different. Australia has diplomatic relations with Canada, and has never been to war with Canada. We have established processes for dealing with Australian/Canadian dual citizens, and Senator Waters' failure to investigate her dual citizenship was negligent on her part. Australia has no strong diplomatic relations with the Taliban administration in Afghanistan because we were at war with them until recently. We therefore have no established rules for dealing with Australian/Afghan dual citizens, and furthermore from what we know about the Taliban's laws it is very likely that they will never allow any Afghan citizen to revoke citizenship. Senator Payman investigated her dual citizenship upon her nomination and found that there was no way she could be certain of her Afghan citizenship status. This satisfies the High Court's tests for dual citizenship -- she has made all reasonable steps to revoke her dual citizenship and any further movement on the matter is a question for the Afghan government, not Senator Payman.

so was the 'kiwi' running for a senate seat in same 2022 election as Fats

@@lachlanmcgowan5712 So they bring their problems with them and infect the other countries with what they had run away from!

It's legal when supporting child killing Zionist religious extremist colonialism , it's illegal to be with humanity. My foot.

Not odd at all but was never suitable as a senate candidate.......

Why odd?

@@danieltynan5301 And you are qualified to judge who's suitable to be a senate candidate?

@@timtench3334 she proved that her self by crossing the floor on an issue that has nothing to do with Western Australia..... Seriously......

The Senate is fundamentally undemocratic because all the States have an equal number of Senators regardless of the fact that they have very different population numbers. Eg Tasmania with just over half a million people and NSW with several million. Do we need a Senate anyway ? They do not operate as State houses (ie representing their particular States) as originally intended by the drafters of the Constitution. The QueenslandParliament has happily operated without an upper house since 1921.

@@stevep2430 yes, an independent senate to review and debate ALL government legislation

Correct. And commensurately, Section 15 of the Constitution is, ironically, unconstitutional, being discordant with the non-party bent of the Constitution.

You are welcome.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

By double standard you mean Sharia and Commonwealth?

@@beniluv3250 What about Canon Law and Halakha? Shouldn't we worry about them too?

The video explained that there was in fact one rule for everyone and the senator is following it. Did you not watch the video you are commenting on?

You are most welcome.

Margy 🥰Do you know Jesus is a messenger of God

@@ytc257 He’s more than that. Are you a true Christian?

@@margyrowland but not God. He is a prophet saved by god from crucifixion. I hope y understand 🥰

The Kangaroos 🦘 🦘have voted for Labour.

...or principals with principles.

@@imankhandaker6103 I see what you did there, very clever. haha,

you are assuming that the senior labor figures quoted by the Murdoch press are not senior labor figments though

Neither do the "liberals". Liberal in name only not in their policies or actions

Sure champ. Tell me again about Morrison holding multiple ministries simultaneously. And secretly.

Ah yes, Prof. Anne Twomey, the same women who tried to trick Australians with Labors 'Voice to Paliament'. In reference to the Marxist agenda she brazenly admitted "the point of the Voice is to use political pressure to influence parliament and the government before laws and decisions are made...". Twomey and other elites treated Australians with such contempt.

Well said.

The Senate doesn't do by-elections. The seat goes to the next candidate in the count. She hasn't abandoned the seat because she hasn't resigned.

Because Senate elections use proportional representation to elect multiple candidates, a by-election is not possible. Some people have suggested that there should be laws that require a Senator to resign if they leave their party. This leads to some tricky questions and I've done a couple of videos about them: ‘Should a defecting MP lose their seat?’ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jt-eqsyYvr3aZ3k.html; and ‘Anti-party-defection laws: legal and constitutional issues’ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l754itScnZmoaWw.html.

I would not be at all surprised if her constituency would prefer Senator Payne to remain as their representative in the Senate. Unless a certain 0.4% of the Australian population mounted a well-funded smear campaign against her.

​@@user-zv1kv6zh2munfortunately yes...

@@user-zv1kv6zh2m So basically, this means she still has the seat but as an independent, and another from her former party will also have the seat increasing the numbers in the Senate. If she no longer has the seat, then how is it she can sill sit ? Surely, this would cause chaos if every member of the senate abandoned their party and became independent, still held their seat and another from their party was also given the seat to replace them.

She was chosen by rank and file members and got kicked out for casting a vote that was consistent with rank and file members official position. What you’re suggesting is that members are selected who will tow the cabinet line rather than the party line. That’s not democracy - that’s closer to Stalinism.

The Greens are useless, in their way, they are still making mistakes by supporting Hamas.

@@robinbrown3293well, it is a left leaning government…

@@paulsz6194 Labor isn't of the left any more. Labor introduced neo-liberalism to Australia through deregulations and privatisation. No party of the left sells off government assets. As for the Greens, they aren't socialist but centre left social democrats.

@@paulsz6194 That's called democracy. It's never precisely balanced between left and right.

Thanks. Good to have a positive comment in here!

Bob Hawke had duel citizenship, Australian and Israeli. This was reported in the media many years ago.

I have done a couple of videos on anti-party-defection laws. See: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jt-eqsyYvr3aZ3k.html on 'Should a defecting MP lose their seat' and kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l754itScnZmoaWw.html on anti-party-defection laws - the legal and constitutional issues.

There are no grounds. She has attempted to divest herself of the dual citizenship and has no practical means of finalising that decision. That's all that can be done.

@@scottcrawford7310 if this had happend in any other country holey hell would have broke out by now

I cant even go back home to India and do this these people are coming hear to Australia and trying to get a way with murder

Australia has one of the largest percentages of people who were not born here, in the world. The majority are very glad to be here, and embrace Australian life and values. That includes people from Afghanistan.

As the video explains, the check-list was required by legislation enacted after the last controversy so that voters can be better informed about candidates and the qualification/disqualification before they vote. Section 44 does not require that the person fills in the checklist, but the High Court's interpretation of s 44 does provide for an exception, which I explain. The question is whether Senator Payman falls within the exception.

​@@constitutionalclarion1901Greetings from Kirrabilli I was hoping you would cover section 15 (const.) I doubted this was a sec.44 issue Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks It was sad to see Paymen do this. Western Australia is a dangerous place for such a person.

@@ETALAL Section 15 only applies if there is a casual vacancy - either because Senator Payman resigns, or because she was validly elected but later became disqualified. In such a case the vacancy is filled by the Parliament of the relevant State (in this case, Western Australia) with a person from the same party that had endorsed the outgoing Senator at the previous election (in this case, the Australian Labor Party).

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thx🙏

You're most welcome.

Why not? It’s ok in most developed countries.

@@kallekas8551 some people need to make decisions of where their loyalty lies, that’s all.

@@BlatFlattery I understand this. But what about kids who came with their parents to this country and they have a love for both. And have served in the militaries of both countries…not enemies.

Be interesting to find out which party introduced the statute allowing duel citizenship.

@@keithad6485 Loyalties….🤣it’s not sport!

What double standards? The Labor party isn't pushing for this. The Australian (a right wing anti Labor paper) said some Labor figures are suggesting she is a dual citizen. I wouldn't take their word on anything as truth.

@@PandaKnight52 Bet you $5 that someone in Labor leaked this to The Australian because they knew Murdoch would report on it even though there's no merit or newsworthiness in the story.

You are most welcome.

Australia is a signatory to the g'cide convention, Geneva convention, Rome statute, ICC, ICJ etc etc she shouldn't be expected to abstain

As the constitution allows.

Curious, on what basis?

​@@johnknight3649 he doesn't have an answer

@@wotizit maybe, its a working day, give the gent / lady a chance to answer... ;-)

As all good legal answers go, it depends.

Currently in and likely to remain in unless she resigns of her own free will.

Labor will blame Peter Dutton

She remains a member of parliament until she resigns or there is a legal mechanism to remove her from parliament. This happened with Senator Rod Culleton not that long ago. If memory serves, he either was bankrupt which means he was not permitted to remain as a member of parliament or there was a criminal offence involved, not sure which, but no matter which one, the law did not allow him to remain as an MP. Payman has not broken any law by leaving Labor, until a much later referendum, the Constitution did not even recognise political parties.

Describing Israel and US perfectly! Nice

@@maxhugen Yes, but the Senator was voted in on a Labor ticket. What about the rest of the voters in her electorate don't they get to have a say who represents them now.

@@lizgibson4171 You can say exactly the same about _anyone_ the party nominates to replace Payman... the voters don't get a say in that either. Besides, given Payman's steadfast morals she will most likely vote _with_ the ALP anyway, on key issues.

@@blip98 Most of it already is. Look for the AEC candidate nomination forms.

Not many would pass that test .

Then there would be no one eligible lol

Australia is a nation of immigrants. We are a multicultual nation. Our Parliament is stronger and fairer with a diverse range of citizens in it, including recent immigrants, settlers, and indigenous people.

Actually it's totally opposite our system only works with a culturally cohesive people. Eventually with the virulent antiwhiteism factions of non-whites will form coalitions against real Australians interests.

@@stewatparkpark2933almost non.

Yes. The document is publicly available on the AEC website.

hardly anyone voted for her. She got a tiny percentage of the vote and ended up elected on preferences. She is the definition of "unrepresentative swill"

​@@ian7033-qj9wg she's great

@@lachlanmcgowan5712… it might very well be but… who thought to check it ?? Initially we all saw a young woman in a burqa, in the Labour Party … Nothing unusual in a multi cultural society of ours … acceptable for most people.. It turned out to be, a young woman in a burqa, with an agenda for supporting a terrorists regime, of a country far away from Australia, involved in a war of aggression against another nation … she given us to understand that her intention, right from the start was to vouch for the recognition of a terrorists state, and clearly do it from the top, through our government, by presenting her personal opinion and support for them… it backfired, happy to say, and she ended up loosing her senate position, which she had obtained by a small margin of votes, in WA… It worked against her really, and her moves showed total disrespect for our government, when she bluntly declared, she’d “walk the floor “ in parliament, and will again,if her views were not heard by the prime minister… well .. she did walk the floor…permanently..thankfully, and this is to be a lesson,for all of us, to make us aware of the dangers that can creep into our society, through radicalism that certain individuals harbour, and will try to influence us, on every chance they get !! We must resist and oppose any disruptive action, by anyone with intentions to disrupt our way of life !! Amazingly, an act of a “true snake in the grass” !!

It's public knowledge, Taliban refuses to retract her Afghan citizenship

They made a video a while back talking about the Australia acts (and stopped by a conversation about this), I can't remember the name, but I suggest going back through her library, They're all well informed videos anyways even if you don't find the answer you were looking for.

Western Australia was not included in the original draft of the constitution, it joined later, and so can secede if it wishes to.

@@sandponics - I don’t believe that that is the case. For any state to secede would require the same majority as an alteration to the constitution - ie majority of states and majority of voters.

The answer is in the words 'as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth'. New Zealand never became part of the Commonwealth. It is an independent country. It is therefore a foreign power. (On the UK being a foreign power - see Sue v Hill.)

@@constitutionalclarion1901 I’m not sure that Sue v Hill is that relevant here given that the UK is not so explicitly mentioned in 6 as is NZ. In particular, NZ has not yet become part of the Commonwealth of Australia but neither has it categorically rejected that option. As I recall there was a very active debate about NZ joining the Commonwealth in the 80s (including some detail about if it would get 2 states or just 1) - that ultimately led the CER and no passport travel, Health and Social Welfare agreements, etc. So in the, admittedly unlikely, event that NZ wished to exercise the option, I can’t see that ‘as for the time being’ really has finished. Indeed, in constitutional time frames one might argue that it’s a work in progress.

In that case, if there was ever an Argentinian-Australian dual citizen who wanted to sit in the Australian Parliament, according to Sykes v Cleary, that person would still be allowed to stay in Parliament as a dual citizen provided that they wrote to the Argentinian government and requested a renouncement, even if the Argentinian government did not allow it.

@jenzag7621 💯 correct she needs the sack asap.

Someone did challenge Josh Frydenberg's qualification, and the challenge was lost (See Staindl v Frydenberg [2020] FCAFC 41). No one challenged Senator Payman's qualification within the 40 day period. Whether people want to challenge or not is a matter for them - but if they lose and costs are awarded against them, it is a very costly business, so not sensible unless there are strong grounds.

Because you can disawbow your dual citizenship to satisfy section 44. But Payman is from afghanistan and Australia doesnt recognise the taliban as the government of afghanistan so she cant disavow her dual citizenship. In those cases the candidate just has to do they best they can to disavow their dual nationality.

She was voted in the represent locals in WA, NOT Palestinian stuff. Deserves all she gets.

Getting him unelected was the one good thing done by the Teals

There is no mention of political parties in the constitution.

The senate stands above any political party. No senator answers to, should answer to, or was ever intended to answer to, the prime minister - who is the head of the party in control of the lower house. Each senator is elected to represent the people of their state - not a political party. In fact it should be the other way around: no senator should be elected as a person affiliated with a political party. Also, you cannot hold "by elections" for the senate. It doesnt work like that. A vacant senate seat is filled by the person nominated by the government of the state that has the vacant seat. By convention that has always been done by appointing a person from the same political party but with so many independents now in the senate that convention is out the window. If I recall correctly, the way its done now is to eliminate the vacant senator from the election results of their election and appoint the next person who would have won a senate seat. But I cant recall precisely how that works.

That is commonsense, the problem is there is no place for commonsense in Australia's political process.

Lefties and righties cry the same tears. It's not how it is done. She may have ran on an ALP ticket but it was because she was Muslim. They wanted the Muslim vote, and she was who they voted for. They the people did not vote for ALP they voted for her. People need to get real and stop crying about nothing, if her electret disagrees with her, she will be gone. It's called democracy.

@@geoffsmith82 I like your thinking mate

Those "constituents" would be more likely to descend into endless arguments that lead to no resolution. Aussies are not renown for being politically savvy.

@@maxhugen It doesn't matter if they are as dumb as a box of hammers. It is the senator's duty to consult with those constituents. They employed her to do the job she advertised at the voting booth. Any change of agenda needs to be negotiated with the employers, not hijacked because she is triggered by heritage.

Actually she only received about 1900 votes. The senate voting system Is a joke

That's rhetorical right?

A matter of preferences, she only got 1681 direct votes.

they didn't, they voted for alp

Perhaps some people think differently? Perhaps that should be banned?

She has made all reasonable steps to divest herself of the dual citizenship. That passes the test in Sykes v Cleary.

Tony Abbott had dual citizenship only renounced to be eligible to for a Rhodes scholarship.

I have done two videos on the consequences of MPs defecting from their party. See: ‘Should a defecting MP lose their seat?’ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jt-eqsyYvr3aZ3k.html; and ‘Anti-party-defection laws: legal and constitutional issues’ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l754itScnZmoaWw.html

He renounced his UK citizenship before being elected.

All about the money?🙄🙄

Nothing - and despite the general misconception, she wasn't elected as a party member, she was elected as an individual representative. All 'above the line' voting does is DELEGATE your allocation of preferences/voting order to the political party you nominate. The votes are still for individuals in the preference order specified.

@@machetti1000 That's not what s44(i) is referring to. It's referring to foreign citizenship specifically, and even then the High Court has not interpreted it unconditionally as it is written.

Because Senate elections use proportional representation to elect multiple candidates, a by-election is not possible. Some people have suggested that there should be laws that require a Senator to resign if they leave their party. This leads to some tricky questions and I've done a couple of videos about them: ‘Should a defecting MP lose their seat?’ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jt-eqsyYvr3aZ3k.html; and ‘Anti-party-defection laws: legal and constitutional issues’ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l754itScnZmoaWw.html.

Senator Payman's views may be anathema to the current party line, but they're arguably consistent with the party's stated values and they are consistent with the views of a majority of her constituents. It's certainly not a straightforward matter.

Another one to scream racism.

So all you would need to do to change the government in Australia would be for a foreign power to award the ruling party citizenship, then according to your rule they must be removed from parliament. That's why we will not do it your way - its a crippling achilles heel to the nation and we would be fools for indulging it.

Couple of points: 1. Oz would not be taking in migrants if we didn't think it was beneficial - so let's not pretend we're doing them a favour 2. The number of humanitarian migrants is a tiny fraction of the overall intake. 3. A huge proportion of 'migrants' are actually 'foreign students' - who we are exploiting to prop up our tertiary education system, and as cheap labour. 4. In my opinion, the other big reason we are taking in so many migrants is to prop up the housing market. 5. Lastly - we use migrants to avoid the expense and effort of training young people. Bottom line - many sectors of Oz society benefit from the intake and exploitation of migrants. Whinging about their effect on social security is a distraction promulgated by right wing media seeking to sow social discord. We need migrants. They improve everything about the country. Long live multiculturalism. It's good to let people come and get educated if they want, but we should be funding our education system properly, and we shouldn't let the education system be used as a source of cheap labour or to get around immigration policy. We most definitely should not be inflating the housing market, suppressing wages, and overburdening services by bringing in too many people at once. But let's be totally clear - it's not migrants fault that's happening - it's some d***head already here that's doing that. How's this for a joke? Bring in too many people to prop up inflated property prices, expand markets, and keep wages low. Then sow fear and division in the population by promoting xenophobic memes against migrants and get the population to vote for the same people who have a vested interest in keeping migration high.

That's great. Thanks.

Try eating more roughage .

Please explain why you hold the view. I am intrigued

This is your brain on Nationalism

You're most welcome.

Glad you found it informative.

The Commissioner has no power to disqualify people. Only a court can determine whether she is disqualified.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 yes agree but it should have progressed to the court then not now…!

Here we go with the islamaphobia, c'mon James that's so 2015; Pauline get to ya? 😂

@@wotizit Go have a quick look at how the UK & France are doing hey ? Then let me know about Islamaphobia when it's too late.

​@@WalJameshow are they doing? A better example would've been Sweden but I guess your knowledge is severely limited to the mainstream media, get a mind of your own buddy

No, you don't vote for the party. You might think that you're voting for the party, you might cast your vote in accordance with the party logo instead of reading the name of whoever you're voting for, but according to the Constitution and the Electoral Act you are still voting for the person, not the party. The way our political system actually functions is that parties are just a way of organising candidates and motivating voters. I strongly suggest that, in future elections, you read up on the individual candidates you're voting for, not just which party represents them.

@@lachlanmcgowan5712 according to the constitution is legal bs not real life.

Don't vote for her next time then

​@@allensutton5390no - in real life as you are seeing right atm

@@user-gs1jb5en8i duh dumb comment

@@user-ph8hc2be7w Too scared to probably .

The Taliban don't even believe that women should be able to read or write. They would take no interest in an Australian female politician's attempt to contact them.

@@Ken-er9cq Should absolutely be NO DUAL citizenship allowed.

Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 Part 1 section 5 states " alien" means a person who is not a British subject, an Irish citizen or a protected person;

@@shellyaus oh that clears that up. In canada they just say the king is canadian

Because it's only because of S44 that it ever becomes an issue. Also don't know if huge numbers of refugees are heading back to Afghanistan or Iran on holidays after being granted refugee status in Australia.

Flying a flag is not necessarily a sign that one has allegiance to a foreign country. Otherwise, every time flags are flown to welcome visiting heads of state, or visiting sporting teams, etc, the poor people putting up the flags would be gaining multiple allegiances!

as far as I'm concerned it should not be obsolete.. most of the really out of touch PMs in this country were actually born in England and brought up in Australia. Tony Abbot and Gillard being prime examples.

@@thevocalcrone Gillard was born in Wales not England

@@thevocalcrone Maybe so, but even in that case §44.(i.) is worded in a convoluted fashion to get around the problem that there was no Australian citizenship back then. Furthermore, it predates the development of dual citizenships, and it doesn't handle them properly. Nowadays you could write "lacks Australian citizenship, or holds any citizenship other than Australian citizenship" (if that was what you wanted), and get away from the vague and complicated wording and the argument about whether the UK is foreign or not.

@@brettevill9055 yes i find it bizarre, I'm not convinced that any other country in teh world allows a person with dual citizenship to take an active parliamentary role as in a seat .. or PM. I personally believe that should remain the case, and that's not because I don't perceive people who are 'new Australians' as not having value or expertise, they could work with their chosen 'party' as a consultant or adviser as part of the governments 'informed decision making'. I have recollections of a time when a person would have to 'give up their British passport' if they wanted an Australian one. of course that was in the days before we had to state whether we were born in Australia when applying for jobs. Its kind of offensive to us Aussies whose ancestors go back to the early days of colonisation. its like putting the onus of proof onto the locals to prove their entitlement to be considered Australian. I have to laugh - I went to bali and the locals were like 'why do Australians let foreigners tell their government what to do? We wouldn't tolerate that here. The boundaries have become very weak. Frankly I do actually support Payman, as a politician having freedom to make decisions outside of the 'party line/dictatorship' but point being.. if she can't legitimately revoke her citizenship, then such is life. She can't run for parliament.. fairly simple. But for a party to allow her to (a government) and then retract because she 'didn't play the game' just indicates how unethical our current politicians are.

@@thevocalcrone Dual citizenship is a different issue from recent immigration. I was born in Australia and have lived here all my life. Both my parents were Australian citizens at the time of my birth, having become Australian citizens when Australia citizenship came into existence (my mother was born here, my father was born in the UK but migrated before 26 January 1949). I have spent a total of fourteen days in the UK, that being a holiday there when I was 39. But owing to a peculiarity of British law I am a British citizen, and therefore a dual citizen, and therefore disqualified from being elected to the Australian parliament. That's not the effect that §44.(i.) was intended to have. The world has changed since 1900; §44.(i.) has become dysfunctional. It needs to be overhauled to take into account of the existence of (i) Australian citizenship and (ii) dual citizenship. We hire 226 full-time legislators to keep our laws up to date and running well; they ought to do their job and fix this.

You're most welcome.